Posted on 12/03/2006 6:43:56 PM PST by Lorianne
Not in Muslim countries. And the reasons lie in fundamental doctrines of Islam.
In the post-9/11 era, the Bush administration's new project of spreading freedom and democracy in the dictators-ruled countries became one of the most discussed and closely followed topics in the media and at levels of the society. As the world gets increasing plagued by violence, unleashed by the Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist groups, a way to turn the tide of violence towards peace was indeed a desirable idea to the peace and freedom-loving people in the world. Although many doubted the means Bush administration undertook to spread democracy around the world, yet there was hardly any disagreement to the fact that freedom, democracy and good governance can usher in peace and prosperity. Believing in this fundamental premise, many in the US and around the world supported the Bush administration's aggressive policy of instituting democracy by overthrowing authoritarian Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the adventure of spreading democracy itself did not succeed in those two countries until now. All indications suggest that it is neither going to be successful in the end. And what we witness today is that the Bush administration's policy of spreading democracy in the hope making those countries a more hopeful and peaceful place has failed as things stand now. Not only that, those two countries have, instead, become massive breeding grounds for the terrorists and the world is at its worst, as far as the threats violent groups and activities are concerned.
As it appears now, the skeptics of the Bush administration's policy of exporting democracy, who had argued that democracy cannot be exported or imposed on a people from outside, might have been right. They have argued that freedom and democracy have to evolve from within. So we can safely say that these skeptics were right and the Bush administration war architects were wrong. Upfront, I want to assert that both the skeptics of Bush formula as well as its supporters are only partially right and partially wrong.
Can democracy be imposed from without? It is a stale analysis to go into given that hundreds of commentaries have been written on this topic in the last few years. I will try to be brief. If we look back into the 1930s and 40s, we see clearly that world's most incorrigible dictators of that ear – the imperialists dictators of Japan, the brutal expansionist Nazis of Germany and the deadly fascists of Italy – have been replaced by the fine democratic governments imposed by the intervention of the allied force in the post-WW II period.
The skeptics might argue that the rule has changed now and it does not work anymore. Afghanistan and Iraq are the most obvious examples. They probably would appear correct. Let us consider the intervention in mainly Christian Bosnia-Herzegovina. After the downfall of dictatorial communism, these regions ran into a disastrous civil war as a result of religio-ethnic fighting between the minority Muslims and the majority Christians. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq , intervention quickly brought the fighting and violence under control. Since then, reconciliation, reconstructions and democratic processes have made steady progress. All indications suggest that secular democracy and peace will be strengthened and lasting. However, there is one concern. Islamic fundamentalism in on the rise and al-Qaeda and other like-minded Islamist terrorist groups are spreading their tentacles there. Hence, the future of a lasting peace and democracy in Bosnia-Herzegovina will sonly depend on how the Muslims behave in the coming years and decades?
Similar, the United States' forced ouster of Charles Taylor of Liberia and Aristride of Haiti, both Christian countries have so far held in good stead. More pressing interventions in Muslim countries, namely in Somalia and Afghanistan, have miserably failed. Instead of bringing democracy and peace, interventions in these countries have made the world a much more dangerous place. These interventions are inspiring Muslims at far corners of the world to form new terrorist groups and strengthening the already existing outfits. There are no indications that interventions in Christian countries, namely Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, have inspired any Christian group in Nigeria, Philippines , Australia, USA , Canada or South America to create terrorist groups and unleash violence of any sort.
Those who argue that democracy cannot be imposed from foreign interventions are obviously wrong if considered the interventions in Japan, Italy and Germany in post-WW II era. All indications from the more recent but unfinished interventions in the Balkan and in Liberia and Haiti also prove them wrong. However they are right, while the Bush administration and their cheer leaders are utterly wrong, when considered the interventions in Somalia in 1993 and more recent ones in Afghanistan and Iraq.
In order to understand this intriguing disparity in success of outside interventions in Muslims and non-Muslim countries, one must grasp the basic understanding of the fundamental precepts of Islam, the common ideological denominator that bind them together. Islamic scholars over the centuries have divided the world into two domains. The first being the Darul Islam (house of peace), which constitute the domains dominated or ruled by the Muslims according to the Islamic laws. The other is the Darul-Harb (house of war), which is dominated and ruled by the non-Muslims and Muslims must wage incessant war (so 'house of war') against it in order to bring into the domain of Darul-Islam so that it can be put in line with the wishes of the almighty creator.
The towering Islamic thinker, historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), who according to one of Prof. Tariq Ramadan, is one the Islamic contributor to the Greek rationalism, philosophy and science, that were later transmitted to the Europeans [ Roots of Rationality, Guardian
22 Sept, 2006]. In affirming this principle of Islam, Ibn Khaldun wrote of the Christians in his greatest treatise, Muqaddimah:
We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their [Christian] dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known. All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Koran. To discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is for them to choose between conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death. [For more affirmation, see Koran: 9:29]
In affirmation of Koranic edict of fighting the infidels until religion is Allah's alone (Koran 8:39), He furthered wrote of the Darul-harb in Muqaddimah :
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense." [Quoted in State and Governance in Medieval Islam, Ann Lambton (1981), Oxford University Press, New York , p201]
In today's violence and terrorism stricken world, those involved in the desperate search for peace, should understand the basic fundamental of Islam. Darul-Islam (Islamic world) is the perfect abode of peace, which is achievable only by the institution of the divine laws of the only true God, Allah. It does not require outside intervention and extra-Islamic doctrines. Islam is the complete and perfect code of life for governing perfectly all aspects of human life: social, spiritual, religious, political, economic and whatsoever. A detailed historical study also tells us that never in the history of pious Islamic rule, the state of affairs have rarely been different and better in Muslim kingdoms than what we see in the Islamic world today.
Islamic countries, holding the most perfect divine codes of Islam to govern all aspects of their life perfectly, obviously do not require importing, nor do they accept freedom, secularism and democracy, which are invented by the humans and particularly by the non-Muslims. On the other hand, Darul-harb, which is ruled by the laws, created by the fault-prone human beings or false Gods, has scope of improvement. So, the imposition for democracy and freedom from outside were quickly accepted by countries like Japan, Germany and Italy amongst others. So, the policy-makers who might be at a fix over their repeated failures to achieve those goals in Muslim countries, which are easily achievable elsewhere, must understand these fundamental distinctions between Islamic and the non-Islamic countries.
Alamgir Hussain (PhD) is an author in " Beyond Jihad – Critical Voices from Inside" (Academica Press).
If it's really democracy it can't be imposed for long since the people will get rid of it.
I believe in two things, freedom and democracy. Freedom is a prerequisite for democracy.
It's largely imposed on us right here at home. There are many who would desire a different system, whether radical or not. But the only choice we are given is elections that are driven by money and sound-bites.
That's our "democracy". Which is still far preferable to losing one's head, but not exactly what was envisioned after the Revolutionary War.
In the hearts and minds of all God's children exists a desire to practice "Free Will". That is what the "Constitution" teaches. For the first time in recorded history people of one nation are willing to die so that the people of another nation can have such freedom. G W Bush did that!
Admirable, but is is logical? This guy is saying no. Perhaps he has a point?
In the hearts and minds of all God's children exists a desire to practice "Free Will". That is what the "Constitution" teaches...
huh?
Interesting argument, I'm afraid. The problem certainly seems to be Islam.
There is one minor--or maybe not so minor--point that I'd question in this article, and in fact it only makes his argument more persuasive. The author translates "Darul Islam" as "house of peace." I wonder if "house of submission" isn't more accurate.
There's the nub of it. Islam demands submission to the absolute decrees an arbitrary God and submission to arbitrary rulers who claim authority in Allah's name. There is no such thing as free will, and therefore no possibility of political freedom.
Yep. Freedom first. Without freedom and limited government, democracy is a threat to the minority. That's exactly why Iraq is in turmoil. Each group is afraid of what the other will do to them if the other is in power.
It's been done before. WWI WWII... This is the first time it's been done for people enslaved to ISslime. How do you free willing slaves? Extreme megatonage JDAMS!
Yes, fundementally incompatible I'm afraid. There are lots of people who are extremely uncomfortable thinking for themselves, and welcome a strict structure imposed on their lives. It certainly makes life easier.
Since I believe in the Christian God, I think it's fair to say that God gave everyone freedom to choose.
Unfortunately, Muslims don't believe that, not one bit. There are several reasons why I consider Islam a heresy, not a true monotheistic religion. One of them is that the Koran directly contradicts the Bible on a number of points. Another is that Islam has some fundamental, basic issues, which go back to Muhammed himself and the Koran.
Christians also believe in conscience, the "law of God that is written in the heart," and conscience is related to free will and helps to guide it. But it's possible to sin to the extent that you become deaf to conscience, and I'm sorry to say that seems to be the state that Muslim extremists, at least, are in.
It's really hard not to conclude that Allah is nothing but a mask for Satan.
DNA to fix the submissive nature of Muslim women is all that's needed.
If democracy is imposed than its not democracy...
It can be done, as you said. But, it may not be possible to do it the way we are trying to do it today.
Overthrowing the government, then immediately handing over to the people in a country like Iraq is probably not the way to go about it. Forceful occupation, elimination of the existing culture, and building up a western-style culture over the course of 20-30 years may do it.
Hand it over to the Iraqis after the 30 year acclimation period is over. And use the natural resources in Iraq to pay for it.
I don't think the problem with Iraq or Afghanistan is anything religious, I think it's our weak attempts at fighting a "civilized" war. We're afraid to buck up and do what it really takes to win, plus you have the constant demoralization heaped on by the left coupled with the public's general unwillingness to back the effort and make sacrifices.
I think failure is not an option...and this fact is REALLY going to come back and hit us hard in the coming years.
Devout muslims are no more likely to accept democracy than devout Christians are to accept mohammed as a prophet of God. Either would be a refutation of their fundamental religious beliefs.
And yes, islam is a creation of satan. I think contemporary Christians have conveniently forgotten about satan. Unpleasant subject, you know!
Democracy requires ethical political servants. Even we don't have that.
Our limited constitutional republic has maximum freedom for the individual. Freedom is man's greatest concept. Under its conceptual umbrella all other concepts are welcome. It is the only concept that buttresses the reality of individual life.
We are witnessing the greatest anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collective in the history of civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.